jump to navigation

Obama’s one-world regime : a progressive return to old problems once resolved August 25, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Constitution, Democrats, foreign policy, freedom, globalism, news, politics, presidential election, religion, socialism, totalitarianism.
trackback

Commenting on Obama’s Berlin speech, John Bolton noted Obama’s naive one world globalist view. Bolton gives two examples from Obama’s speech:

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, ‘”The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.” Having earlier proclaimed himself “a fellow citizen of the world” with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party.

In his July American Enterprise Institute article, Bolton goes on to give Pres. Ronald Reagan credit for the end of East German communist regime. However, technology must receive its due credits as well. Pres. Reagan would not have succeeded without the global spread of the Internet and Satellite communications. Like the printing press, the development and spread of these two technologies threated to reveal the many year of perpetuate lies the Kremlin told its citizens about the West. It was soon to show that communist leaders kept them in perpetual poverty not for the grand cause against the evils of West but because of power based on lies. To the extent of that threat, Pres. Reagan facilitated the conversion of the Kremlin’s to a more western way of governance after coming-out with the truth. Reagan saved the Russian leaders behinds for being killed by the enraged masses Russians.

Anyway, Bolton is right.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech–the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism–were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by “one-worldism.”

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: “The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn’t see all these “walls” as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side–our side–defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively “tearing down walls” with our adversaries.

All commentators–at least at the American Economic Institute-note the mostly contentless rhetoric of Obama’s campaign speeches. David Frum suspects Obama has no clear and definitive views. As Frum states it: “Maybe Obama’s mind really is as foggy as his language.” I think Obama presents content-free speech through obscure language because he actually has something to hide.

Given Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media past reporting on Obama’s ties to Islam, the communist party, and other favored global organizations of socialist democrats, one world solutions to global problems advocated by Obama further indicates the direction of his leadership.

That direction was recently mapped out by Prof. Paul Eidelberg. He accurately sees what lies behind the Obama’s rhetoric of revolutionary change. Obama envisions the Democratic Party’s regime change with himself at the helm of the world. The envisioned regime is already populated by advocates of a new civilization. They proudly wear the label of the Left, liberal, socialist democrat, globalists, and the like. Many Americans have not only embraced the ideals of this new civilization but its leading members like those of the World Socialists, ACLU, Lambda Legal, Human Right Campaign, Planned Parenthood, They, like many westerners, already adhere to ideals and values oppositional to the West’s Judeo-Christian worldview.

To Israelis like Prof. Eidelberg and American Jews like David Frum, the proverbial hand-writing is already on the wall. Obama and his leftist backers want us to believe that one-world governance will solve the problem of Islamic terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinians problem. It demonstrates the mindless cause-driven oblivion of the Left to the hard realities of human hostilities resulting from real and ideological difference. Thousands of Israeli Jews are already suffering the results of this type view by current political leaders.

The Left believes that their secular replacement religion is the cure to all religious, ideological, and political differences. In essence, their view is that all members of the planet must worship at the naturalistic altar of scientifically justified materialism. All religions are acceptable as long as they hold secondary importance to the Left’s anti-religious secularism. Their conviction is that their humanistic value system in which they replaced God for evolutionary science and perfectibility of [depraved] human beings is the solution to the world’s problems. The problem with their solution is that it neither satisfies nor solves the recurring problems of most humans. That is why they have achieved their agenda thus far by deceptions, by lies, by gaining power, and by stealth politics. Consequently, they produce the same destructive conflicts that they accuse religion and moralists of causing.

In the end, the regime favored by the Left–whether led by Obama, Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, or Russian Pres. Putin–will usher in a new blood bath of another totalitarian regime. It may wear a smiley face for a while, but dealing with powerful opposition to its renewed type of civilization will sooner or later require the use of military force. The renewed possibility of a biblical type of anti-Christ coming into power is increasingly more likely. If a world dictatorship occurs, he will be realized by those who are already embrace that type of leader of a renewed new world civilization.

The progressive’s change is in reality a re-turn to old problems that were solved by Christians of Europe, their Anglo-Saxon Puritan progeny, and America’s founders who carried forward the biblical revolution of freedom and governance paid with sacrifice and blood and enshrined in a national political covenant consisting of a written Declaration and Constitution.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Bible Timeline - September 22, 2008

Bible Timeline…

The Samaritans were snubbing someone far greater than Elijah. They were snubbing the Son of God. If anyone deserved to be struck by lightning, it was them. But that was not the Spirit of Christ. He came to show us a new way. You have heard it was s…

2. tulip - October 1, 2008

A vote for Obama is to gaurantee a depression. Higher taxes under our current econonomic crisis is like trying to extract water from a desert. Growing government, as he promises to do, will also cause a depression. Obama is a marxist, he wants wealth redistribution. Why is America running towards Marxism. Our country is about to fundementally change for the worse. I can not believe what I am witnessing. Remember Reverend Wright and his Black Liberation Theology? Google it, it is Marxism. Why are we not hearing that word? This is crazy!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: